The Good, the Bad & the Canon 24-70mm L

So, with the 24-70 II rumors circulating, we've been discussing how some lens models tend to receive many more complaints out-of-the-box (from the factory) vs others.

Whether it be the 17-55 IS motor issues, or the pre-2006 soft 100-400s (and BBing issues), or the claims of numerous poor 24-70L's, some lenses seem to suffer from poor quality control more than others.

Question: how many of you have tried/purchased new/used Canon 24-70 L lenses, and how many of those have been out-of-spec? (extreme softness, decentering, focus issues, etc)

I'm going first.

I bought my first 24-70L used, and it suffered from decentering issues and was soft wide-open, not reaching acceptable levels until f/4. I was scared off from trying another copy until last night--and ended up with a GREAT UU-date copy--no issues, and sharp right from f/2.8. It handily beat my Sigma 24-70 2.8 non-HSM at 35mm-70mm from f/2.8-f/4

I have purchased this lens new twice and both worked great out of the box. This topic has been gone over many times in the past, and the bad copy stuff is totally blown out of proportion here.

I got mine in '94 when I got my 10D and it's been a workhorse ever since.

-Pat

I've used two different 24-70's and both were sharp out of the box.

The 24-70 seems to be the main go to lens for most serious wedding shooters and shooters in similar working conditions where good sharp fast glass is needed. There has to be a reason it's so popular and being soft wouldn't be one of the reasons...

Jon.

I have used 3 24-70's and all where sharp. My only issue is the weight, honestly I would rather see an updated 24-105 that is a bit better on the wide end with some nicer bokeh.

Jon Foster wrote in post #12286184
The 24-70 seems to be the main go to lens for most serious wedding shooters and shooters in similar working conditions where good sharp fast glass is needed. There has to be a reason it's so popular and being soft wouldn't be one of the reasons...

Jon.

Read again--this has everything to do with quality control and variance between copies. No one ever claimed that the entire line was inherently bad.

Currently I am torn between the 24-70L, 24-105L, and 17-55. I want to use one as a walk around lens because my 28-135mm kit lens is just horrid in low light and just not happy with it.

What turns me off is that the 24-70L doesn't have IS and it isn't rumor'd that the 24-70LII won't have IS.

Frozzy wrote in post #12286639
Currently I am torn between the 24-70L, 24-105L, and 17-55. I want to use one as a walk around lens because my 28-135mm kit lens is just horrid in low light and just not happy with it.

What turns me off is that the 24-70L doesn't have IS and it isn't rumor'd that the 24-70LII won't have IS.

first of all if you are using a crop i suggest the 17-55. although i still don't really regret my decision on getting the 24-70 (which was sharp out of the box btw) as a walk around i would rather have the 17-55. the 7mm on the wide end makes a bigger difference than having the extra 15mm on the top end. also the weight and the size (with hood) become a bit of a burden.

if IS is the only thing that's turning you off then don't worry about it. i've never had problem without IS on the 24-70.

Looks like we currently have 47 "all goods" vs 13 "at least one dud".